A note on Cosign
Signal,
Not Slop
As I see it, Cosign wants to be LinkedIn without the slop. Here is how I think about the problem, and a few possible ways forward.
It's about reputation
Underneath the goal is one thing: reputation.
Cheap Signal argued a cosign only holds value while it stays costly. This is the next step: how to keep it costly while Cosign grows.
What Cosign already built
Cosign's community lists ask questions like "Who's a young person you think will be a star?"
Discourse by Cosign gives tech leaders a curated place to talk. It is a natural home for vouched work.
Those lists are already judgment from people. That is the core of this idea.
A natural next step could be to extend that judgment to the work itself.
Two ways to build reputation
Scarcity, through access. Who lets you in. Who vouches for you.
Abundance, through engagement. How much you post. How many people see it.
LinkedIn runs on abundance. That is where the slop comes from.
The real problem is quality
| Reach | Quality | |
|---|---|---|
| Scarcity | Small, slow | High |
| Abundance | Big, fast | Collapses |
| The goal | Big | High |
Scarcity alone keeps quality high. But it is too small and too slow to replace LinkedIn.
Abundance alone grows fast. But quality falls apart.
Cosign needs the reach of abundance without losing the quality that scarcity protects.
What if every member was a creator?
Builders have to create today anyway.
a16z is a powerhouse in part because of an excellent media practice. Every touchpoint is excellent: their X, their Substack, their blog, their LinkedIn. The partners who write hold themselves to a standard. That standard is the brand.
Excellence attracts excellence. That is what people want to be near.
If members create, the content and the network could grow from the same act.
More creators doesn't mean more slop. Not if volume earns nothing. What if only work that someone named vouches for counted toward your reputation? A post nobody vouches for would carry no weight.
Your name could grow when the people and work you backed succeed. One strong piece would beat ten weak ones.
And your work would land in front of the people who decide your next job, deal, or hire.
How it could hold up
What counts as success
One answer could be concrete outcomes. A hire, a launch, or a deal, confirmed by the people involved.
Gaming
One way to handle gaming could be a small number of cosigns per person. An early bet that does not work out would cost only a little standing. An early bet that pays off would earn a lot of credit, so spotting talent first is rewarded most. Cosigns traded back and forth could count for less.
Cold start
A new member could get in with one vouch from someone with a strong reputation. That person would put some of their own name on the line. What if a new member's first pieces were shown to the person who vouched them in and that person's circle? Good early work could then earn its first cosign.
Unfair decay
What if reputation came from the track record of your judgment, not how often you post? It could fade slowly. A busy builder who posts rarely but well would keep their standing.
Possible ways forward
- What if a post had to be real work, like a launch, a write-up, or a project, not a status update?
- What if members could cosign a piece of work, not just a person, with their name shown on it?
- What if each member had a small number of cosigns each month, so every one means something?
- What if a profile showed only the work others vouched for, and who vouched for it?
- What if the biggest credit went to people who backed someone early and were right?
Reputation is what people expect of you, based on evidence they trust. LinkedIn made that evidence cheap. Cosign can make it costly again.